BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 04:11 AM

Jim, you seem to be saying that Britons were wrong to be angered at the massacres of ordinary people and children because they deserved it.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 04:11 AM

Before anybody - guess who - attempts to claim I or anybody is taking sides in all this jingoistic shit and claiming that Belgium's behaviour in its colonies in any way justifies the German atrocities
"The Rape of Belgium" - in context
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 05:31 AM

So, if it was not justified Jim, can you not see how caring, brave people might be moved to put a stop to it?
That is what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 05:55 AM

BBC Jim.
Germany admits Namibia genocide
German army hanging Hereros (archive pic)
Germany's military commander had vowed to wipe out the Herero
Germany has offered its first formal apology for the colonial-era massacre of some 65,000 members of the Herero tribe by German troops in Namibia.
German minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told a commemorative ceremony that the brutal crushing of the Herero uprising 100 years ago was genocide.

But the German government has ruled out compensation for victims' descendants.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 05:55 AM

At the risk of confusing Michael. ..

Keith has decided that tabloid articles don't have the sincerity he claims after all and in a vain search for an Oracle, has decided that nobody can argue with an Amazon review.

Quite.

What next.. Wikipedia?

I thought A J P Taylor would at the very least cause him to argue against the man. But apparently he does made up shit.

Fucking priceless.



I, just like Keith, reckon the BBC is normally on the button. Let's see now. What did I get from there?
Oh yes!


Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 06:08 AM

I did not contradict Taylor.
Do you deny that Hastings made copious use of material from ordinary soldiers as the reviewer states and you deny?
It will be very easy to check.

Can you provide anything to support your lies about the historians?
Of course not!
You made it up.
Made up shit to hide and save your silly face.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Musket
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:02 AM

For anyone bored enough to keep up with Keith's logic, (I must be, but humouring him is a distraction that I welcome. Procrastination helps with the day...)

Keith says a newspaper reporter cum author who wrote a version of military history that his paymasters would like and serialise for him said one thing.

Keith says that it must be true because he is called Hastings so must be respectable. (Been watching or reading too much Agatha Christie I reckon.

An eminent historian, A J P Taylor asserted something that creates huge holes in the logic of Hastings, and of course wrote it decades earlier.....

Keith said he doesn't contradict Taylor either.

A classic case of having your cake and eating it.

Watch out if you wish to quiz him on this. In the spirit of Mudcat members having a love in, he will call you a liar, a disgrace to the memory of dead people and call quotes by famous people "made up shit" on the basis you quoted them.

Michael is clever enough to defend him in order not to have the machine gun spray in his direction, or stupid enough to defend him because he likes sanitised history that doesn't jar with what we were told in school and conditioned to believe. I can't fathom which.

Funny old world.

I feel a poem coming on.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:25 AM

Not 'defending' [or the opposite] anyone, Ian. Not engaging specifically on either side in this controversy at all (how many times do I have to point that out to penetrate your stubborn thick ☠!?). Merely disputing a stupidity in [what you claim to be merely] 1% of your argument; which, if it had any validity, wouldn't need any such pathetic crutches anyhow as to claim that if it's in the Daily Wotsit or the Daily Umyah then it can't be right becoz decent lefties don't like them.

'S'all

Ta-ra

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:35 AM

IT IS NOT JUST HASTINGS!
NO HISTORIANS HOLD YOUR VIEW BECAUSE IT IS BOLLOCKS!
YOU LIED ABOUT HASTINGS!

Hisorian Nigel Jones describing Hastings' book.
"But it is the voices of ordinary folk that resonate loudest and longest: the conscripted clerks and scholars torn from their ledgers and books, never to return; or the wives and children"

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:59 AM

AJP Taylor quotes, with page refs from his WW1 book.

p.527: "The Germans did not fix on war for August 1914, but they welcomed it when the occasion offered. They could win it now; they were more doubtful later. Hence they surrendered easily to the dictates of a military time-table. Austria-Hungary was growing weaker; Germany believed herself at the height of her strength. They decided on war from opposite motives; and the two decisions together caused a general European war."

"The Powers of the Triple Entente all entered the war to defend themselves."

"It is sometimes said that the war was caused by the system of alliances or, more vaguely, by the Balance of Power. This is a generalization without reality. None of the Powers acted according to their commitments, though no doubt they might have done so if they had not anticipated them. "

p.528:"As to the Balance of Power, it would be truer to say that the war was caused by its breakdown rather than by its existence. ..Russia began to recover her strength, France her nerve. Both insisted on being treated as equals…The Germans resented this and resolved to end it by war, if they could end it no other way.They (germany) feared that the Balance was being re-created. Their fears were exaggerated. "

"The German military plans played a vital part. The other Great Powers thought in terms of defending themselves. "

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 10:23 AM

Your point being?

None of that bears any relationship to the callous disregard the military top brass had for their men, the jingoism to encourage enlisting, the incompetence and worst of all, the deaths that competent leadership would and could have avoided.

A J P Taylor said as much. If you wanted to, you could even selectively quote your precious bloody Hastings out of context and he would be seen to agree.

By the way. I don't have a view. I know that war is a failure by definition. I know that millions died. I know that waves after waves of men were pushed into the waves and waves of bullets. I know what the government did to encourage men to enlist. I know what the army did to discourage them from questioning.

You don't need views. You don't need revisionist accounts. You just need to shake your head at the "To the Glory of God" obscene mumbo jumbo above the carved names of innocent victims of failure to prevent war. There is no glory. Nothing to get glorious about. Nothing to thank. War is the perfect example of the non existence of any bloody God.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 10:44 AM

None of that bears any relationship to the callous disregard the military top brass had for their men, the jingoism to encourage enlisting, the incompetence and worst of all, the deaths that competent leadership would and could have avoided.

Historians, e.g. those on BBC site, say the British army was well led.
AJP Taylor did not agree, but he knew little of military matters.
He was more politics.

All countries used jingoism to encourage enlisting, but our volunteers had a just cause, according to historians eg those on BBC site and AJP Taylor.

Your version is refuted by historians.
We have not found one that supports you.
Boom, boom, boom.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 11:18 AM

We have not found one that supports you.

Who precisely are "we", Keith? or are you employing the Royal We?

By the by, Its hard for one to find something if one don't look.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 12:34 PM

One can go on about German or Belgian atrocities in Africa etc but we weren't exactly lily-white handed ourselves. Not even going into how many countless native Africans will have died at the hands of British troops there is the episode with 26000 Boers, mainly women and children, dying in British concentration camps. Then there was the camps for black prisoners which were even more numerous than those for the Boers. How many died in them? Glass houses and all that

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 01:13 PM

"Germany admits Namibia genocide....."
So what?
My point is that the hypocrisy of using the atrocities carried out against the Belgian people (undisputed) as an excuse for going to war, was just that - hypocrisy.
The Belgian atrocities in the Congo, which the world totally ignored as unworthy of comment, let alone not worth going to war over, underlines that fact.
Mark Twain wrote his pamphlet six years before the war broke out - not a dickie bird from the rest of the world.
The Wiki article underlines the cynicism shown by Britain using the plight of "poor little Belgium" as an excuse for sending millions of young people to die in the mud.
As Allen points out - you could not squeeze a credit card between the inhumanity shown by any of them towards their subjects
Poor little Belgium - 10 million Congolese, - what's the difference (apart from the colour - and the numbers involved, which seems to be important to some people when discussing other forms of persecution!!)
Empires struggling for power - that's what slaughtered a generation of young men - not sympathy for anybody.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

We have not found one that supports you.
Who precisely are "we", Keith? or are you employing the Royal We?
By the by, Its hard for one to find something if one don't look.


By "we" I mean anyone on this thread.
None of us have found one.
Not me, though I have produced about 12 that do not support you.
Not any of you.

And I have looked.
And I know Jim has looked and failed.
And you Greg?
Still can't find the time?
Of course you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 05:11 PM

My point is that the hypocrisy of using the atrocities carried out against the Belgian people (undisputed) as an excuse for going to war, was just that - hypocrisy.

It was not Jim.
Britain was treaty bound to defend Belgium.
Were it not, Britain would still have had to fight for its own security.
But, ordinary people were angered by the massacres of thousands of ordinary people and children.

That is what the historians say.
Who are you Jim Carroll to say they are all wrong and you right?

(Yes Greg. I said all. If you want to challenge that again, come up with some names this time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 06:42 PM

de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

Depends on your definition of argument Nigel. The title seems fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 07:06 PM

I have produced about 12 [historians(sic)] that do not support you.

TWELVE? GODDAMN! Now that dozen certainly constitutes "All Historians" who have written about the First World War.
You are, once again, a fucking idiot. And a pathetic one at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 07:07 PM

"Your version is refuted by historians".

Some historians, all British or allies of the British.

Mandy Rice-Davies.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 02:02 AM

If it is only some historians, why can no-one find a dissenting one?
Greg?
Why do the BBC not provide some balance on their history site?
Balance is basic to BBC.
They clearly can not find one either.
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:22 AM

I found two.

A J P Taylor.

Baldrick.

The former was dismissed by Keith as being a political not military historian and the latter he even quoted himself a few posts back so there is hope yet.

Keith has inadvertently cut to the chase. He is only interested in military historians. People write the history of urinals don't notice the smell of the shit coming from the doors behind them. But shallow fools call their accounts a history of the gents.

Or some such bollocks. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:29 AM

Baldrick of course is a fictional character in a sitcom.

AJP Taylor agrees with me that the war had to be fought.
That also means that those who fought had a right and just cause.
That is my view that you all dispute.

Military historians agree that the British army was well and effectively led.
The long dead Taylor disputed that but was no military historian.
His main interest was the politics of the far-left.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:57 AM

This thread is entitled 'Armistice Day' an event to give thanks to those who died in World War One.
With a grand total of 102 postings out of 273 Keith has managed to reduce the subject to "my historian's better than yours" without once referring to the facts of the causes of the War other than to produce the 'qualifications' of 'a handful' whose works he has not read and does not intend to.
I have little doubt that those who died would have been proud to be remembered with such respect and gratitude.
Well done Keith - a true patriot, as usual!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 04:06 AM

"my historian's better than yours"

I say no such thing Jim.
I say that my view is in line with the historical evidence, according to the historians, and that there is nothing whatsoever to support what you muppets claim.

Or have you found something Jim?
Musket?
Troubadour?
Greg?
Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 06:14 AM

Keith has inadvertently cut to the chase. He is only interested in military historians.

No Musket.
No need to be a military historian to know and understand the causes of the war, or people attitudes and feelings about the war.

On matters of military history, military historians do know more.
The clue is in the name.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:18 AM

Yes, and many theological scholars write of history proving scripture. Doesn't mean they are dealing with facts, even though they would have you believe it so.

The only comment on military history I am concerned with is that of history being written by the victors.

"On matters of military history, military historians do know more." I suppose you haver some of your precious evidence to back that up?

Baldrick may be a fictional character, but there is less fiction in "Boom Boom Boom" than "the war was well and effectively led." Worst bit is, pushing waves of men into the bullets didn't end the bloody fiasco anyway.

Have you no shame Keith?

Just because your political affiliations are little Englander, doesn't mean you have the right to portray carnage we should be ashamed of as something to be proud of.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:55 AM

"On matters of military history, military historians do know more." I suppose you haver some of your precious evidence to back that up?

As I said, the clue is in the name.
You could make a similar claim about social historians, classical historians, art historians, political historians,.........

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:02 AM

You have been given the horrific facts of "Gallant little Belgium's' Colonialism (claimed by you to to be the motivation force behind WW1 - no comment
Yu have been given a description of the cynical way that the British War Machine used the plight of the people of Belgium to inveigle British youth to their deaths - no comment.
You have persistently been told the now historical fact that WW1 was a war between Imperialist forces fighting over the colonial division of the world - no comment.
You have been given the long accepted reasons for British soldiers joining up - no comment
You have been given recorded descriptions of somebody who actually served in the War bearing out all the accepted reasons - no comment
I have repeated an account - with link - to those reasons, along with a summary of all those reasons - I'm sure you do not need my invitation not to comment - that's how you and all jingoists propogate your jingoism
Jim Carroll

Volunteer Army, 1914-15[edit]
The traditional image of recruitment in 1914 is of an initial wave of enthusiasm and volunteering greeting the outbreak of war. At the beginning of August 1914, Parliament issued a call for an extra 100,000 soldiers. Recruitment in the first few weeks of war was high, but the real 'recruiting boom' began in the last week of August, when news of the British retreat following the Battle of Mons reached Britain. Recruiting peaked in the first week of September.[2]
By the end of September, over 750,000 men had enlisted; by January 1915, a million. The reasons for their enlistment cannot be pinned down to a single factor; enthusiasm and a war spirit certainly drove some, while for others unemployment prompted enlistment. Some employers forced men to join up, while occasionally Poor Law Guardians would also refuse to pay support for fit military-aged men. The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons, though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country.[3]
One early peculiarity was the formation of "Pals battalions": groups of men from the same factory, football team, bank or similar, joining and fighting together. The idea was first suggested at a public meeting by Lord Derby. Within three days, he oversaw enough volunteers sufficient for three battalions. Lord Kitchener gave official approval for the measure almost instantly and the response was impressive. Manchester raised fifteen specific 'Pals' battalions; one of the smallest was Accrington, in Lancashire, which raised one. The drawback of 'Pals' battalions was that a whole town could lose its military-aged menfolk in a single day.
The government demand for men continued unabated, and after the first call in August for 500,000 men; a further 3.5 million were called-for before the year ended. The pre-war calculations had supposed that the British Expeditionary Force would lose around 40% of its manpower in the first six months of fighting. Kitchener's predictions of three years fighting and a million men needed was regarded as incredible. The seven divisions of the BEF, totalling 85,000 men, had been landed in France at the outbreak of war; casualties in the first three months totalled almost 90,000. By mid-1915, this total had risen to around 375,000 even before the autumn offensives and the rate of recruitment was falling off, for a number of reasons.
In 1915 the total available number of men of military age was 5.5 million, with around 500,000 more reaching the age each year. By late September, 2.25 million men had been enlisted and 1.5 million were in reserved occupations. Of the rest, the recruiters had uncovered a dismaying fact — almost two in every five volunteers were entirely unsuitable for military service on the grounds of health. When volunteer numbers fell to around 70,000 a month after the Dardanelles Expedition, the government felt forced to intervene, although they initially avoided conscription. A National Registration Act in 1915 created a register that revealed the number of men still available and they were targeted in a number of ways. The skills of advertising were brought to bear with posters, public meetings, tales of German atrocities, and the threat of shame. The 'Derby Scheme' used door-to-door visits to gather men to 'attest' to serve if needed, with a promise that bachelors would be called up before married men.
Many public institutions of all sorts mobilized to help recruit for the war. The women's suffrage movement was sharply divided, the slight majority becoming very enthusiastic patriots and asking their members to give white feathers (the sign of the coward) in the streets to men who appeared to be of military age to shame them into service. After assaults became prevalent the Silver War Badge was issued to men who were not eligible or discharged.
The popular music hall artistes of the time worked enthusiastically for recruitment. Harry Lauder toured the music halls, recruiting young soldiers on stage in front of the audience, often offering 'ten pounds for the first recruit tonight'. Marie Lloyd sang a recruiting song I didn't like you much before you joined the army, John, but I do like you, cockie, now you've got yer khaki on (1914). Vesta Tilley sang The Army of Today's alright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_to_the_British_Army_during_the_First_World_War

Men enlisted in the army in WW1, because:
Songs
Posters
Economic reasons (money)
Glamour (uniform, bravery etc.)
German brutality (propaganda, eg. gorilla)
White feathers (handed out by women to symbolise guilt and shame of not enlisting)
Travel (adventure)
Money (fed regularly)
Women (popularity with heroes)
Guilt (not signing up)
Religion (god ensure survival)
Pals batallions (fought with friends)
Patriotism (King and country)
Fatherly instincts (protecting future children)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:08 AM

You have persistently been told the now historical fact that WW1 was a war between Imperialist forces fighting over the colonial division of the world - no comment.

Ok.
My comment is it is not a fact, it is bollocks.
Germany invaded Belgium and France.
That is a fact.
Britain France and Belgium fought a defensive war of liberation.
That is a fact.

You have been given the long accepted reasons for British soldiers joining up - no comment
Ok.
My comment is that your reason is bollocks and an insult to brave young men, and is not "long accepted" except by people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:17 AM

So if you ignore the reasons Jim has cited, all of which seem perfectly reasonable to me, what other reasons are there for a bus driver in Bolton to leave his family and go to France?

You know, the words "brave" and "foolhardy" are not mutually exclusive.....

Your pathetic attempts to gag reality on the flimsy basis that YOU think dissent to the official MoD account of their cock ups is disrespectful doesn't wash. Dragging the "brave young men" into your justification is not nice, not clever and not very respectful either.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:29 AM

what other reasons are there for a bus driver in Bolton to leave his family and go to France?

For national survival and to ensure that his family do not become victims of the cruel invaders like families in Belgium.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:21 AM

From Jim's last paste job.

"The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons, though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:32 AM

"For national survival......"
One single reason among fourteen others given, all fully documented (including illustrations and quoted examples) and accepted by every single historian
And ignoring every other point I made - as you have throughout this thread
That's what I like to see, good, honest open debate!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:46 AM

Jim, your list was a Wiki answer!

Your other piece made this point for me.
Thanks.

" The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons, though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country."

(Mons was a defeat and a desperate, chaotic retreat for the British in 1914.)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:49 AM

Problem is Jim, one point in his argument's favour and he thinks all arguments against aren't valid. He is incapable of noting the truth in some of what he says, choosing to say that if part is true, the rest must be too and anyone saying otherwise is a disgrace etc.

Rather pathetic really.

(Even when a "real" military historian is cited by me, he dismisses him as "political." It'd be funny enough, but A J P Taylor for Clapton's sake......)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:02 AM

Taylor, the only historian you cited, was not a military historian and anyway he supports my view on the cause of the war and why we fought.

This is Todman on the BBC history site.

"Both Clark (for financial reasons) and Littlewood and Taylor (for political reasons), emphasised - often inaccurately - the incompetence of British generals and the futility of war."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/perceptions_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:10 AM

"Problem is Jim, one point in his argument's favour and he thinks all arguments against aren't valid. "
You have responded to one single point - that is what is pathetic
There y'are again - second chance
20 Nov 13 - 08:02 AM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:14 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:08 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:47 AM

Bollocks is no response - it is simply a denial of a single point I made
You have the evidence from accredited sources
You have yet to respond to the facts of Belgian colonialsm and the hypocrisy of using "gallant little Belgium" as an excuse for the slaughter of millions
You have yet to respond to the fact that it was an Imperial war (despite the fact that the War Museum in London is named after it.
You have yet to respond to the documented evidence of the recruitment campaign (maybe the posters, songs, and jingoistic articles are all fakes - waddya think?)
You have yet to even respond to the eye witness evidence we recorded.
You have responded to nothing whatever other than to deny history (nothing new there)
Your entire argument is based on a few cut-'n-pastes from review of a book by a military journalist which you have not read, nor intend to
That's two - one more go and your out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 12:39 PM

Todman disagrees with Taylor. Ok, got that. Taylor agrees with Keith A of Hertford. Ok, got that if I don't get the first bit...

I doubt Taylor supports your view as your view isn't easy to fathom. As Todman says, in your own cut and paste, that Taylor was inaccurate to refer to incompetence and futility.....

May I suggest you sit down, have a cup of tea and one of those nice pills they gave you. You have managed in one very short (by your standards) post to contradict yourself threefold.

I shouldn't laugh. Not professional...



By the way, can you ensure that you start and end all your posts with parentheses? That way, we can differentiate between Keith the rambling fool and Keith the rambling fool who gets his words from other sources. Making them the same allows you to wriggle out of your own views. Citing the source would be nice too. After all, I don't want my browsing history to have some of the far right websites you seem to visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:33 PM

Bollocks is no response - it is simply a denial of a single point I made
I agree.
That is why I told you why it was bollocks.
And, only 1 or 2 questions at a time.

You have yet to respond to the facts of Belgian colonialsm and the hypocrisy of using "gallant little Belgium" as an excuse for the slaughter of millions

It was not.
Britain went to war because it was bound by treaty to do so in response to the German unprovoked invasion, and for its own security.

You have yet to respond to the fact that it was an Imperial war (despite the fact that the War Museum in London is named after it.

It was indeed a war caused by German imperialism and militarism.

You have yet to respond to the documented evidence of the recruitment campaign (maybe the posters, songs, and jingoistic articles are all fakes - waddya think?)

Yes I have. I said that all recruitment campaigns used such methods.
So what?

You have yet to even respond to the eye witness evidence we recorded.

That is because one individual's view is of no historical significance.

Your entire argument is based on a few cut-'n-pastes from review of a book by a military journalist which you have not read, nor intend to

That is a simple lie Jim.
I have put up the findings of many historians and everything on WW1 from the BBC history site.
It all supports me.
Nothing supports you.

In future I only respond to one or two issues at a time.
I do not want my replies to go unread like your long unreadable posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

Musket.
I doubt Taylor supports your view as your view isn't easy to fathom.

My view is easy to fathom.
1. Britain had to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

2. Our people understood and accepted the need to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

3. The British Army was well and effectively led. (Taylor disagreed, but all the military historians do agree, and Taylor was politically motivated.)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:59 PM

If killing hundreds of thousands of young British men was the actions of an army effectively led then you are right.

However. ...






Tried phrasing this lots of ways and to be honest, if Keith needs it phrasing he is beyond reason. Beyond hope. Beyond respectability.

Sorry.   I am genuinely saddened that occasionally articulate people can defend carnage and decision making that was not fit for purpose. A generation was effectively wiped out or scarred and the stupid man defends it.

No wonder he is a right wing zealot. Something about human nature and the beast I suppose. He'll be telling us he is a Christian next. Not s Christian I would recognise by the term.

So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 04:54 PM

You write as if it comes from me.
I only know this because I have studied the findings of the military historians.
You believe that they are all wrong and yet you have some special knowledge.
Where did you get it from Oh Wise One?

You made it up, like the rest of the shit you come up with.

Contact the BBC and tell them their WW1 history site is "beyond reason. Beyond hope. Beyond respectability."

Tell them it is true because Ian Mather pronounces it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 06:24 PM

"By the start of the twentieth century Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire

Wikipedia - British Empire"

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 06:35 PM

Previous post was me.

"Britain's 1882 formal occupation of Egypt (triggered by concern over the Suez Canal) contributed to a preoccupation over securing control of Nile, leading to the conquest of neighboring Sudan in 1896-1898, which in turn led to confrontation with a French military expedition at Fashoda in September 1898. In 1899, Britain set out to complete its takeover of the future South Africa, which it had begun in 1814 with the annexation of the Cape Colony, by invading the gold-rich Afrikaner republics of Transvaal and the neighboring Orange Free State. The chartered British South Africa Company had already seized the land to the north, renamed Rhodesia after its head, the Cape tycoon Cecil Rhodes.

British gains in southern and East Africa prompted Rhodes and Alfred Milner, Britain's High Commissioner in South Africa, to urge a "Cape to Cairo" empire: linked by rail, the strategically important Canal would be firmly connected to the mineral-rich South, though Belgian control of the Belgian Congo Free State and German control of German East Africa prevented such an outcome until the end of World War I, when Great Britain acquired the latter territory.

Britain's quest for southern Africa and their diamonds led to complicated social complications and fallouts that lasted for years. To work for their prosperous company, British businessmen hired both white and black South Africans. But when it came to jobs the white South Africans received the higher paid and less dangerous ones, leaving the black South Africans to risk their lives down in the mines for limited pay. This process of separating the two groups of South Africans, whites and blacks, was the beginning of segregation between the two that lasted until 1990.

Paradoxically, the United Kingdom, a staunch advocate of free trade, emerged in 1914 with not only the largest overseas empire, thanks to its long-standing presence in India, but also the greatest gains in the conquest of Africa, reflecting its advantageous position at its inception.

Wikipedia - New Imperialism"

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:04 AM

So what.
None of that would have led to Britain going to war with Germany.

German armies pouring across Europe to the Channel, massacring civilians as they went, did.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:13 AM

Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:40 AM

300.

How many before the number matches the soldiers dead through incompetent irresponsible leadership?